Sunday, May 27, 2012

According to both the Elias Sports Bureau and Bay Area stats guru David Feldman, the worst batting average of the modern era is considered to be the horrendous .210 mark of the 1910 Chicago White Sox. Although if you go back to the 19th century, that dubious honor goes to the .207 average of the 1888 Washington Nationals—whose catcher was Connie Mack, the future owner of the Athletics franchise when it was located in Philadelphia.

Mack contributed to that 1888 milestone season by batting .187 himself. The Nationals’ best hitter was outfielder William “Dummy” Hoy, who was deaf and mute. Hoy was said not to be offended by the nickname—or be distracted by anything else, apparently, because he batted .274 for that miserable team.

The A’s could use a Hoy right now. Nobody on their roster except Reddick (.271) is hitting better than .250. And this year’s team is definitely on track to surpass (underpass?) the A’s franchise-record-low .223 batting average set in 1908.

Yes, I know. Batting average isn’t everything. Batting average is overrated. I saw “Moneyball.” I understand the Billy Beane first commandment. Walks are as good as hits, right? And as a team, the A’s do own the 12th-most walks in the majors. But sooner or later, hits become mandatory. Which is why the A’s are 27th in runs scored.

Reader Comments and Retorts

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

Seriously. The A's are also last in the league in OBP. If they could be leading the league in OBP by hitting .350 as a team and never drawing a single walk, I reckon Billy Beane would be delighted.

I saw both games they've played against Texas so far this year, and while the result was a split, I felt for them. That is not a very good AAA lineup they've thrown out there – I mean, it might not be the worst lineup in a AAA league, but given their ages, if that were your actual AAA lineup, you'd promote Reddick, DFA everybody else, and take a mulligan.

The headline and article content contradict each other. An offense can't be historically bad when there are three worse ones in the same season!

Edit: The article is actually flat out wrong. The A's are 29th in runs scored and they are dead last in runs vs. league average runs, so at least they are the worst offense this year. So maybe they are indeed historically bad, but that's not what you'd get from the article.

Before he got hurt, Cespedes looked like he had really been cutting down on the Ks. He might be good. Reddick looks good, though I doubt he'll be a 140 OPS guy. Weeks seems like he's being BABIP'd to death, maybe he'll bounce back. Pretty much everyone else is hopeless at this point.

Not much to look forward to in the minors with Choice and Green seeming to stagnate. Norris looks like a good prospect. Miles Head is crushing the ball in A+, but no one seems to think he can play anywhere but 1b/DH and there are lots of doubts about his athleticism. Most of the pitching prospects are struggling as well, though the possible emergence of Straily helps offset that a bit.

What is nonsensical is the idea that "bad offense" would refer to BA rather than to runs scored. The objective of an offense is to score runs, not to hit for average. If the A's have scored more runs than 3 teams this year, there are 3 "worse offenses" than they.

What is nonsensical is the idea that "bad offense" would refer to BA rather than to runs scored. The objective of an offense is to score runs, not to hit for average. If the A's have scored more runs than 3 teams this year, there are 3 "worse offenses" than they.

But no one's made that claim (not even the headline writer). The assertion is that the A's offense, in one pretty significant category, is on pace for historical ineptness. No one, not the writer or anyone in the thread, has made the nonsensical claim that this particular ineptness makes their offense the worst.

I'm not saying the A's offense is worse than the Cubs or Pirates offense, but man it's hard to watch day after day. It's the worst offense I can remember watching on a regular basis. Seth Smith is their 2nd best hitter! Seth Smith!

The headline and #13 both equate "historically bad" offense with BA, clearly. Not just "historically bad BA" but "historically bad offense." #4 makes the point that "bad offense" means you're not scoring, and I agree.

The headline and #13 both equate "historically bad" offense with BA, clearly.

No, that's you doing it. The headline says the "A's offense is flirting with futility of historic proportions." And that's 100 percent true. Putting up the worst BA in more than 100 years would absolutely be a historic level of futility for an offense. If you want to read more into it than that, for the purposes of discrediting it, well, I think that's just silly. But the headline itself is accurate.

And I'll let PF defend his remarks, but I think you are also reading more into it than his intent.

A's fans are used to this. Even when the A's were good, they were usually rubbish until the kids got out of school. In the summer they'd have to climb out of the hole they dug in the spring. Now they don't have the players to climb into the division race but they won't continue to play as poorly as they are now.

The thing I don't understand is why they won't give Chris Carter a solid trial at first base. If he doesn't hit like Frank Howard upon arrival, he quickly loses playing time and gets sent back down to AAA because they don't want him sitting on the bench. He's already 25 and still hasn't received a fair shot. It's not like a two month 0-fer is going to be the reason the A's miss the playoffs. Is there something Deric Barton has done that makes them think he's going to develop the power the A's so dearly need? If think we'd have seen some signs of it by now.